User talk:HenkvD

 Hello HenkvD, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Juan de Vojníkov 19:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

category gadget
Hi, I noticed that you've been doing a lot to help organize categories. Great work! I just wanted to let you know that we have a tool that helps make it easier to place pages in a better category. If you go to Special:Preferences and click on Gadgets there is an option called HotCat. Check it out, and let me know if you need any help. --mikeu talk 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have installed it. I am not sure if I will use it often.... HenkvD 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Just thought it might save you some time and help with what you are doing.  --mikeu talk 13:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi and welcome!
Thanks for your edits to my Neuroscience page. I was wondering what you would like to get out of Wikiversity, and how you envision the site as developing. --AFriedman 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 Hi! Our name is Vicky-Verity. We are twins and are Wikiversity mascots. We think Wikiversity is a great place to learn and make friends (when we aren't sleeping). Leave us a message!


 * I don't have a specific vision on Wikiversity. I am doing mostly maintenance jobs on wiki's: interwiki's and sisterlinks like on commons:Category:German language. On Wikiversity I started to organize categories because I found there were a lot of duplicate categories. I will then try to add interwiki links etc. HenkvD 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work with the categories. Do you know about the Subject, completeness level, resource type and intended audience boxes?  I like to use them.  The Subject box page has the links to the others.   I don't know what your area of expertise is, but IMO it's also important to add content to Wikiversity (e.g. working on the courses other people have started).  In particular, few people seem to have thought about how Wikiversity could offer instructor feedback or automated feedback.  Another thing I've been doing is going to Wikipedia pages and adding links to Wikiversity so more people know about the project, because Wikipedia pages tend to be well viewed.  What are your thoughts about doing these things?  --AFriedman 04:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * About Subject boxes: I personally think the Categories attached to these causes a lot of unwanted articles in higher categories (like Category:Biology if the box Template:biology is added to pages.) At this moment the Category:Biology with 73 pages is OK, but if all pages in Category:Biochemistry, Category:Cell biology, Category:Genetics, Category:Microbiology etc. etc. are added it will become a complete jungle. Just an observation from an outsider. I would prefer not to use the subject boxes but navigate via categories instead. HenkvD 19:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * About instructor feedback or automated feedback:
 * Quiz extenstion requires no human interaction
 * The wiki way would be that students grade and/or comment each other
 * I have seen homework via e-mail but that will fail when the teacher is no longer involved
 * or Wikiversity has to invent its own extention...... HenkvD 19:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Re: boxes, many categories have subcategories and perhaps this would be the most useful way to structure WV. I just think the boxes are pretty. Wikipedia certainly has some very large categories, like "Living people." Re: feedback, I just finished an online workshop on WikiEducator (a website with a purpose similar to WV) about the wiki markup language. It's at. It's incredibly well organized, with daily instructor feedback, online chat/video meetings, a Google group and several levels of certification. IMO it's worth looking at just to see what wikis can do. These workshops are offered every month or so on WikiEducator. Even though Wikiversity is so small, quizzes don't require human feedback. Very few of them have been added and more could be. In addition, even TA grading rubrics are intended to create a very specific algorithm for the TAs to use, and some aspects of this can be automated. Just a few thoughts. --AFriedman 03:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Artificial Consciousness
Hi, I see you slaving away, redoing categories, and I wondered why you were removing categories like psychology from my Artificial Consciousness pages. Is it redundant in some way?--Graeme E. Smith 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion categories like psychology is indeed redundand, as the articles fall into Category:Artificial consciousness, which falls under Category:Consciousness that in turn falls under Category:Psychology. So Psychology is implied already. I just looked and found that a lot of Artificial Consciousness pages are categorized in Category:Consciousness, I would suggest to use Category:Artificial consciousness instead. Some of the pages on Category:Artificial consciousness should be moved up to Category:Consciousness as well. Any objecttions? HenkvD 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's tricky, I don't quite understand the category system, which is why I am probably over categorizing my work, but part of the problem is that sometimes a page has a specific reference to psychology on it. I don't know if you have looked at my Portal yet, but Artificial Consciousness is a discipline that draws from Neuroscience, as well as psychology and is dependent on Computer Science for its simulations and implementation. I haven't categorized all the infrastructure in the portal yet, but if you look it over you will see that it is not as simple as Artificial Consciousness being part of Consciousness being part of psychology. Unless psychology is categorized under neuroscience but even then, it would leave the Computer Science stuff an orphan.--Graeme E. Smith 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every reference needs to be catogorized. As for Computer Science: I added Category:Computer science to Category:Artificial consciousness.
 * {| border = 1 |


 * rowspan=2 | Category:Artificial consciousness
 * Category:Consciousness
 * Category:Psychology
 * etc.
 * Category:Computer science
 * etc.
 * etc.
 * }
 * I hope my categorization helps you and others to goce some structure to this wiki. HenkvD 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope my categorization helps you and others to goce some structure to this wiki. HenkvD 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So, all I need now is to note the pages that are neuroscience separately?--Graeme E. Smith 21:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and No
 * Yes, as Neuroscience is not implied directly
 * No, because in my opinion not every reference needs to be catogorized.
 * It is up to you whether or not to add the category Neuroscience. HenkvD 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: categories should be written like and not like  . HenkvD 19:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ever since I started work on the portal, I have been putting curly brackets in too many places, It's because I had to hack the tabs, to get them to go more than one level deep I think.--Graeme E. Smith 19:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Hi HenkvD,

Thanks for your diligence and for caring about keeping the Wikiversity categories tidy.

In this case, please reverse the speedy deletions of the categories you mentioned on my user talk page.

The project with which they are associated is due to be promoted in 2009. Having the categories already available will be useful to new entrants. The categories are listed in the guidelines for editors.

There are also many pages which still need to be categorised using these categories. I have just not had time to do it of late and don't have time now to comment on all the categories you have flagged.

Thanks

Kim Ktucker 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To keep discussion central: I moved this to User talk:Ktucker. HenkvD 14:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Thanks HenkvD. I think the category structure is starting to breath a sign of relief thanks to your ongoing efforts. . -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What are the rules?
I'm glad you're working on categories. It's important work.

At Technical writing you've removed the categories of "business" and "writing" from all the pages in the course. Before I undo your work, please let me know your reasoning for excluding technical writing from these categories.


 * Technical writing is a vital part, of business. As you'll see in the course content, it's not just writing user manuals. Everything from the conception of a project to it's creation, testing and analysis involves technical writing skills.


 * Writing about technical subjects is...well, Henrik, it's writing.

Please note you also removed these categories from the page about writing requirements specifications, which is very much a business and project management topic.

As a guy who has to index and classify things, I wonder if your object is to be inclusive or exclusive. Both have their merits, and it's important to remove obviously unsuitable subjects from a category. But in an environment like Wikiversity, I'd suggest that being inclusive should be the default decision.

So if you could do me the favor of restoring these with your clever gadget, I'd really appreciate it. If you have suggestions of how I can improve my categorization, or a set of standards you're following, please contact me.

Thanks again for your work. I appreciate the time and effort you're putting into this important effort. TWFred 00:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All articles about Technical writing are in Category:Technical Writing. This category is included in the category Bussiness, I added that on 9/2/2009. Category:Technical Writing was already in category Writing. My rule would be: As less categories as possible in the topics and articles, and as less categories as possible on Categories itself. I think you would call it Exclusive, but I don't think that is really the case. Fot suer I am not an Inclusinist. A very clear example of remove obviously unsuitable subjects would be this change at Cognition. My guideline would be Wikipedia:Help:Category: Each page is typically in at least one category. It may be in more, but it may be wise not to put a page in a category and also in a more general category. In that way the categories like Category:Business have only one entry to Technical writing, as well as one entry on any other interesting subject. As for Category project management: it could be added to the particular article. HenkvD 19:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a look. Thanks, Henk. Your scheme is exclusionary rather than inclusionary.

Is there a specific technical reason for this? I ask because from my perspective the purpose of categories is to aid users in finding related information...not the mental convenience of XML thinking techies. What is obvious to you, with a clearly technical background, is often completely wrong for the typical user of the system.

Were these policies agreed upon, or have they just evolved in this way because the people involved happen to be technically oriented rather than user information oriented?

You're a specialist in using this tool for assigning categories, it's clear. I'm a specialist in the presentation of semantic information to users. I don't think your work is at all bad, but I think focusing on excluding subjects from multiple categories misapplies the very concept, defeating the original purpose of having categories.

Categories are for helping users find additional information, not enforcing an arbitrary tree-like hierarchy.

This is why I cannot agree with your unilateral decision on this. I appreciate your work, but it's clear that in some cases you're doing more harm than good.

Again, if there is a specific technical reason why your approach is the only possible solution, please let me know. But if it's arbitrary, it has to be much better thought out before it's applied so indiscriminately.

Best, TWFred 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no technical reason for this. I sometimes use the HotCat tool, but that is not relevant for this actions. My approach is a bit technical, but some Wikiversity wide improvement on categorisation was ind is certainly needed.
 * My goal too is to help users to find information. The basic difference between your view and mine is that you want the categories inside the articles and that I categorize the categories.
 * Categorisation is not only for finding related information but also for finding the initial information. I am sure you will agree on that. I still find it hard to navigate through the categories, especially from the starting point Category:Categories, or find something via Browse /my sandbox for Wikiversity:Browse. Do you have suggestions for improving it? HenkvD 12:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Henk. I again thank you for your work and diligence.

Wikiversity wide improvement on categorization is a huge undertaking. Helping people find information initially, as well as showing how categories are related to each other is our mutual goal.

When I look at Category:Categories I'm immediately struck by the fact that not even native speakers of English can differentiate between the labels. What is the difference between something being a:


 * Course
 * Field
 * Occupation
 * Profession

...and so on. Those words are semantically null. They seem to be chosen for convenience rather than inherent meaning.

Clicking on a "category" doesn't help either. To use the technical writing pages as an example, it seems obvious to me that they should be found in more than one of these categories, if not all of them. Yet my pages are only listed...all of them apparently, under the very long list of courses.

I could also look for my pages through the various portals, and not find it except by accident by scrolling through very long lists.

There needs to be a logical hierarchy that allows cross-categorization.


 * Courses
 * Writing
 * Technical Writing


 * IT
 * Programming
 * Testing
 * Documentation
 * Technical Writing


 * Business
 * Project Management
 * Project Documentation
 * Technical Writing
 * Writing Requirements Specifications


 * Professions
 * Business Analyst
 * Writing Requirements Specifications
 * Project Management
 * Writing Requirements Specifications
 * Writing
 * Technical Writing

Thanks for having this discussion with me, Henk.

TWFred 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above aproach, logical hierarchy with cross categorisation as well. I am currently working on the Topics / Category:Departments. I have not started yet with Category:Categories as indeed it has no logical structure yet. I probably should have hierachies on school subjects, on eduction level, on resoucre type and maybe others as well. HenkvD 18:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonkilling Barnstar
For your initiative improving significantly the School of Nonkilling Studies. {{subst:Barnstar 17| --Cgnk 15:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just added all topics in the category structure. HenkvD 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Departments
I noticed you removed the "Departments" cat: from European History again. May I ask what your criteria for keeping some Departments in that Category and not others is? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Topic:European History is already in Category:History departments, which is a subcategory of Category:Departments by subject and Category:Departments. By this way it is still on the Browse screen. HenkvD 07:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but right now there are some Departments which are not in subcategories. Generally, people visiting Browse are more likely to only look at those Departments.  I am of the opinion that either only particularly developed departments should be directly in the Departments category, or none should be.  Your opinion?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting all in the main category makes this too big. Having none in this category is a good principle, but difficult. Maybe we should create a Misceleneous department category or Other department category. Should this then be placed on Category:Departments by subject? HenkvD 07:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. But would it maybe be better to simply move all of the groups in "Departments by Subject" right into "Departments"?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, but in future we might have groups like Departments by Educational Level etc. Do you want me to move all of the groups in "Departments by Subject" right into "Departments" ? HenkvD 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, but virtually all departments currently at Wikiversity intend to cover all education levels (at least in theory), with very few exceptions. But sure, let's move them all right into "Departments" and put all of the extras in an "Other" or "Miscellaneous" category.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

✅ I created Category:Miscellaneous departments and moved all topices not categorized as subject into it. Furthermore I removed the level of Category:Departments by subject. It looks much better Browse this way. HenkvD 10:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Much, much better.  Thanks!  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)